[Geysers] More Time Code Survey Stuff

[Will Boekel]

Gazers,

I am going to end the current survey and I have put out a new one (probably won’t be the last) that is based on some of the discussion from the last survey.

Changes to the proposed addition:
1.Have the “A” stand for “Approximate” and NOT for “Assumed”
2. Will only be used on geysers like: F&M, Giant, ect.
3. Will only be used if the ENTRANT is 100% sure the eruption happened from witnessed aftermath.

Also, Jake has told me that eventually the search function in Geysertimes will allow a user to select only times with no codes on them, only E times, only non questionable entries, ect. So basically a big revamp to the search function.

I also snuck in a question on if “VR” should be added.

Link to new survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JZ9KBT9


Below are more comments from the last survey the final tally was 33-22 In favor of adding the A.
a.. USER VOTED NO- I would be afraid that the person making the decision in calling an unseen overnight eruption for a particular geyser may not have enough experience when making such a call on one of the more complicated eruption indicators.
b.. USER VOTED NO- It is useful to know that a geyser is believed to have erupted. But I think a number which is not possible eg 3333A or 9999A would be preferable to 0000A which could be midnight. Thanks for all the work you do on the geysers.
c.. USER VOTED YES- It should only be used: 1. Only if it has been field checked and known to have erupted (no wc times) 2. Only with a time range that it was not physically observed when the eruption was know to have happened. I would not call it assumed under these circumstances.
d.. USER VOTED NO- Unless we KNOW that an eruption occurred, there should be no entry. If we KNOW that an eruption has occurred, but don't KNOW the time, then nothing that looks like a time, other than between xxxx and yyyy, assuming that these are KNOWN, should be used.
e.. USER VOTED YES- but I still have concerns about using a time stamp
f.. USER VOTED YES- I have mixed feelings on this. There needs to be a way to document known eruptions. (like FM where the boardwalk is washed and the marker is gone) but we should not include "likely" eruptions like "the interval between the last two Grand eruptions was 15 hours, so there must have been an overnight eruption" With one there is some documentation an eurption occured, with the other it is only an educated guess, but still a guess
g.. USER VOTED YES- With adding A, future analysts can include it or exclude it as they want. Also, anyone who is interested in the details can read the comments. More data as long as it is clearly marked is better than less data.
h.. USER VOTED NO- We need to discuss this issue more. The people who do research usually choose their data carefully and would need to view comments to see what to choose. Bracketing with times last seen and when marker was seen washed are best along with the "overnight designation.


Thanks,

Will Boekel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20130109/f4316355/attachment.html>